"President Bush did not need Mr. Lieberman's persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed -- and what Connecticut had the right to expect -- was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control."

"But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction."

"Plus, of course, Lieberman doesn't "tiptoe" around the war issue - he actually supports the war in Iraq - still! -- and thinks it was the right thing to do, and he's in lock step with Bush on all of it. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but either Lieberman thinks he did, or he's a secret neo-con who thinks we should invade countries and bring them democracy by a gun. And so far that's working out real well in Iraq, isn't it?"

"You can make a kooky radical dream come true. You know, the one where a clean-cut businessman from Greenwich gets nominated - a guy who agrees with most Americans on issues like war, taxation, and health care. But this way-out Utopian vision is far from a sure thing. So, Democrats of Connecticut, make a miracle!

"Finally and most urgently, we need to change Washington to replace a national security policy of weakness with one of strength. Our costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq has weakened America - by taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, by overstretching our military, by failing to invest in homeland security, by putting Israel's security at risk and by alienating our allies and further angering our adversaries."

"Clearly, Lieberman's position on the war is out of sync with many voters in the increasingly blue Nutmeg State. But his refusal to join in the shrill national campaign of Democratic vituperation against the president is an example of the principle that has animated his Senate career for the past 18 years."

"In this case, if they choose Lamont over Lieberman, Democrats in Connecticut will be losing a leader. And they'll be gaining a man who is at best a cipher and at worst a shameless panderer on matters of central importance to American security."

"Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration."

"Some Democrats claim the "fiscal conservative" by saying they want to balance the budget. Lamont, for instance, says he'd "roll back Bush's tax cuts" - that is, raise taxes. But even such a massive tax hike would hardly be sufficient to close the current deficit, and it certainly wouldn't pay for Lamont's sweeping spending plans."

"As someone who has supported the war, I feel a heavy personal responsibility to end our mission in Iraq as quickly as possible. But I believe that Ned Lamont's strategy of pulling all our troops out by an arbitrary, politically determined date will lead to the collapse of Iraq, Iran surging in, and Iraq becoming a safe haven for al-Qaida and a launching pad for terrorist strikes against other countries in the region and the United States."

"In a better world, the U.S. war on terror, at its core, would be bipartisan. That world was what Joe Lieberman's politics represented. That world is dead. Democratic support for the Republican administration's plans to fight these terrorists is down to about zero."

"Lamont seems to think that we should just sit down with the Iranians and show them why going nuclear is not a good idea. This recalls Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction in September 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II: 'Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.'"

"Lamont, a multimillionaire limousine liberal, represents the modern McGovernite rank-and-file of the Democratic Party. His most ardent supporters are more likely to carry a laptop than a lunch bucket, and they are still inclined to blame America first."

"Most of all, Mr. Lieberman knows the consequences for U.S. security if the Lamont Democrats prevail. A Senator Lieberman would prod the Bush Administration for a strategy to win in Iraq; a Senator Lamont would cut and run and hope for the best."